linux-kernel - Re: [perf] perf_fuzzer causes crash in intel_pmu_drain_pebs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ae72b937-6a1b-cf61-353f-eeec9dfb8557@maine.edu>
Date:   Tue, 2 Mar 2021 00:29:44 -0500 (EST)
From:   Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [perf] perf_fuzzer causes crash in intel_pmu_drain_pebs_nhm()

On Mon, 1 Mar 2021, Liang, Kan wrote:

> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/tip-01330d7288e0050c5aaabc558059ff91589e67cd@git.kernel.org/
> The patch is an SW workaround for some old CPUs (HSW and earlier), which may
> set 0 to the PEBS status. It adds a check in the intel_pmu_drain_pebs_nhm().
> It tries to minimize the impact of the defect by avoiding dropping the PEBS
> records which have PEBS status 0.
> But, it doesn't correct the PEBS status, which may bring problems,
> especially for the large PEBS.
> It's possible that all the PEBS records in a large PEBS have the PEBS status
> 0. If so, the first get_next_pebs_record_by_bit() in the
> __intel_pmu_pebs_event() returns NULL. The at = NULL. Since it's a large PEBS,
> the 'count' parameter must > 1. The second get_next_pebs_record_by_bit() will
> crash.
> 
> Could you please revert the patch and check whether it fixes your issue?

I've reverted that patch and my test-case no longer triggers the issue.

I'll restart a longer fuzzing run to see if any other issues turn up.

Thanks,

Vince